Is it illegal for a Pro Se to threaten to present criminal charges in a civil lawsuit?

S

Saul

New Member
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Is it illegal for a Pro Se plaintiff to threaten a criminal defamation charge while there is a civil defamation case ongoing for the sam thing?

I know for lawyers it's a no-no and they can get disbarred.

What statues exist to reprimand the Pro Se plaintiff?
 
Saul said:
Is it illegal for a Pro Se plaintiff to threaten a criminal defamation charge while there is a civil defamation case ongoing for the sam thing?

I know for lawyers it's a no-no and they can get disbarred.

What statues exist to reprimand the Pro Se plaintiff?
Click to expand...
I think it just makes them look stupid since defamation is a civil matter.
 
Saul said:
s it illegal for a Pro Se plaintiff to threaten a criminal defamation charge while there is a civil defamation case ongoing for the sam thing?
Click to expand...

Slow your roll and start focusing on defending yourself.

All trials are presided over by a judge.

Don't get twisted out of sorts, lose focus on your defense, allowing the trickster to cause you to poop in your undies.

Chill a tad or two, citizen.

Focus on important human things, not the shenanigans of Simans and Primates.
 
Saul said:
Is it illegal for a Pro Se plaintiff to threaten a criminal defamation charge while there is a civil defamation case ongoing for the sam thing?
Click to expand...

It's not illegal in my state for a pro se party to do that. But the threat is a useless one. As already pointed out most states have a abolished criminal defamation laws and the few that still have it, like CA, no longer enforce it. And then there is my state which has a criminal defamation statute but somehow the legislature overlooked providing a penalty for it, making it utterly useless.

Also, in most states the victim of the crime is not the one who decides if the case gets prosecuted. That's up to the district attorney or state's attorney to decide. He can make a criminal complaint with the police if he wants, but it won't go anywhere. He'll have to be satisfied with his day in civil court. And should he lose in civil court, a criminal case (if there was one he could complain about) would be nearly impossible to win because the burden on the state to prove the crime is higher than what a civil plaintiff has to prove. If he cannot even meet the civil standard to win his case then he doesn't have enough to meet the more demanding standard in a criminal case.
 
Should my lawyer notify the judge at least of that threat even though the judge might not do anything about it ?

OR is there something the judge can do like a reprimand?

PS: the case in itself is weak per legal counsel.
 
Saul said:
Should my lawyer notify the judge at least of that threat even though the judge might not do anything about it ?
Click to expand...

You can ask your lawyer if he/she thinks there is any value in informing the judge of it. I suspect the lawyer will say no. Pro se parties are not held to the same standards of conduct that lawyers are and the threat isn't something that will affect your civil case at all, especially given that the threat is meaningless.
 
Tax Counsel said:
You can ask your lawyer if he/she thinks there is any value in informing the judge of it. I suspect the lawyer will say no. Pro se parties are not held to the same standards of conduct that lawyers are and the threat isn't something that will affect your civil case at all, especially given that the threat is meaningless.
Click to expand...

That person just badger me with just emails stating how he will do x,y and z. I just want him to stop since the case is in litigation and going very slow. Its like a 2 year old just blasting emails upon emails.
 
Saul said:
That person just badger me with just emails stating how he will do x,y and z. I just want him to stop since the case is in litigation and going very slow. Its like a 2 year old just blasting emails upon emails.
Click to expand...
Filter them out and don't read them.
 
Tax Counsel said:
As already pointed out most states have a abolished criminal defamation laws and the few that still have it, like CA, no longer enforce it.
Click to expand...
The states that still have criminal defamations statutes:

States that allow for criminal defamation of character punishment are Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Montana, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and New Hampshire.

So says Google.
 
Saul said:
That person just badger me with just emails stating how he will do x,y and z. I just want him to stop since the case is in litigation and going very slow. Its like a 2 year old just blasting emails upon emails.
Click to expand...

You have a lawyer.

All communications should be going through your lawyer.

Just block and ignore.

If the idiot wants to say some nonsense to the judge about you refusing to communicate with them directly, the only one that will look stupid is him. You have retained legal council for a reason.
 
welkin said:
The states that still have criminal defamations statutes:

States that allow for criminal defamation of character punishment are Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Montana, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and New Hampshire.

So says Google.
Click to expand...

Right, most of the states that have gotten rid of their criminal defamation laws and slowly the rest are moving to do that too. I don't know if whatever source Google gave you as the current list of states that still have it because it's been awhile since I did the research checking the statutes It may be accurate, and if it isn't, it's pretty close.

But for the states that still have defamation criminal statutes I only recall one attempt at actuall prosecuting a criminal defamation case in all the time I've been a lawyer. I think it was in North Carolina and I don't think it got very far. Americans today hear much more vile slurs, threats, and smears of character, seemingly on a nearly daily basis, than was the case decades ago. Because of that, I have a hard time seeing a jury seeing statements that are defamatory as a crime. After all, it's hard enough to get a civil jury to award damages in a defamation case and the plaintiff has lower burden to meet in the civil case than the state does in a criminal prosecution.

I think state prosecutors in those states that still have such laws would rank a defamation prosecution as very low on their list, if they'd consider it all.
 
Saul said:
I know for lawyers it's a no-no and they can get disbarred.
Click to expand...

No lawyer is going to get disbarred for a single threat of criminal prosecution in connection with a civil matter. The most that would likely happen would be a private reprimand.


Zigner said:
I think it just makes them look stupid since defamation is a civil matter.
Click to expand...

Agree.


Saul said:
Should my lawyer notify the judge at least of that threat even though the judge might not do anything about it ?

OR is there something the judge can do like a reprimand?
Click to expand...

Don't you think these are questions for your lawyer, who, unlike us, knows the context of the threat and all of the other relevant facts and circumstances? Let's say there's a status conference coming up and your lawyer chooses to use that moment to tattle on the plaintiff to the judge. My expectation is that most judges would respond along the following lines: "OK, counsel, what do you want me to do about it?"


Saul said:
That person just badger me with just emails stating how he will do x,y and z. I just want him to stop
Click to expand...

So...block his email address. If, for some reason, you want to preserve his emails in case he says something damaging to his case, set of a folder into which his emails go automatically and forward them to your attorney once a month (or whatever frequency makes sense).
 
zddoodah said:
No lawyer is going to get disbarred for a single threat of criminal prosecution in connection with a civil matter. The most that would likely happen would be a private reprimand.




Agree.




Don't you think these are questions for your lawyer, who, unlike us, knows the context of the threat and all of the other relevant facts and circumstances? Let's say there's a status conference coming up and your lawyer chooses to use that moment to tattle on the plaintiff to the judge. My expectation is that most judges would respond along the following lines: "OK, counsel, what do you want me to do about it?"




So...block his email address. If, for some reason, you want to preserve his emails in case he says something damaging to his case, set of a folder into which his emails go automatically and forward them to your attorney once a month (or whatever frequency makes sense).
Click to expand...
I preserved his emails and my lawyer is keeping them. He doesn't understand free speech the guy and everything to him is defamation.
 
Zigner said:
I believe that you also may not understand "free speech". It's a common problem.
Click to expand...
Court granted the summary judgement in my favor :) (claims for defamation) but the plaintiff is going to file an appeal with the court.

He said he will introduce "new" documents. What he doesn't understand is that for the reconsideration, he will have to use the existing docs and tell the court that the court made a wrong decisions; I don't think he gets this point.

At what point does this become a form of harassment towards me?
 
Last edited:

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top